SynthesisEmergency radiology2025
Evaluating the diagnostic value of ultrasound in meniscal injury detection: current evidence and future directions.
Synthesis in Emergency radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeniscal injuries are a common cause of knee dysfunction and healthcare utilization, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being the diagnostic gold standard. However, MRI's cost, limited accessibility, and contraindications of MRI have prompted interest in ultrasound (US) as a more affordable, portable, and radiation-free alternative. This review aimed to synthesize the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of US for meniscal tears and to define its role alongside MRI and arthroscopy in clinical practice.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed from January 2020 to March 2025 for English-language studies of adult patients (>18 years) undergoing US assessment of suspected meniscal injuries. Eligible studies used MRI or surgical (arthroscopic or open) findings as reference standards. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracted the study characteristics and diagnostic metrics, and tabulated the results.
resultsSix studies comprising 499 participants met the inclusion criteria. US sensitivity for detecting meniscal tears ranged from 63% to 92.9%, and specificity from 63.6% to100%, with higher performance for medial than for lateral tears. Point-of-care US in emergency settings demonstrated sensitivities up to 92.9% and specificities up to 88.9%. Community-based US yielded specificity ≥97% for medial tears.
conclusionUS exhibits clinically acceptable diagnostic accuracy for meniscal injury, particularly when high-frequency probes and experienced operators are used. However, future research should focus on large-scale standardized trials to refine scanning protocols, quantify learning curves, and develop guidelines for integrating US into meniscal injury trajectories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41065951What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.